David Josephs Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Right on Tommy , that was the Warren Commisions job! ,Not David's intention. Ian Preceisely Ian... =================== Mr. G... Lammy wants to make sure we use photogrammetry when measuring the differences or similarities of the BYP yet does not seem to possess or provide the results of his own photogrammetry based measurements that may prove this one way or the other... but he asks others to do so... and reminds them that without it any comparison is worthless.... different perspective, LOS, etc,etc.... So I thought what differences were apparent WITHOUT the need to measure anything... Well, the differences on the rifle are real and apparent... at least to me and many others and the hands... it seemed apparent to me when I started to look, that all the other images of Oswald's hands showed very large hands, large knuckles, long slender fingers... and then there is the BYP hands.. which dont. The short stubby fingers have been commented on for many years... I had simply never seen the side by side, so I made one. the BYPs do not exist on an island... they attempt to tie together evidence that is fraudulent and establlish a connection between a name found in one of a number of wallets found that day and Oswald... if none of the evidence actually gets THAT rifle into Oswald's hands... how can his hands be holding that rifle, if in fact that even is c2766? I can also accept finding them at 3:30 on the 23rd... yet there is good evidnece that they existed as early as the eve of the 22nd... or at least one image existed at that time... and was known to Fritz 3 hours before it was found... When we compile and look at the evidence related to all the related aspects which need to be authenticated/justified for those photos to be genuine, rather than just what they LOOK like... we become researchers who analyzes the evidence in CONTEXT... CONTEXT Thomas... an entire complex conspiracy and cover-up is created to divert attention from the actual participants of the assassination yet THESE PICTURES are genuine..?? Listen to yourself. as genuine as Oswald's trip to Mexico City... his bringing a 3-4 foot paper bag to the TSBD, or his being seen in the SE window of the 6th floor at any time... the EVIDENCE does not support these conclusions... the EVIDENCE does not support that these images are authentic... I, personally, have little to do with the evidence the WCR/HSCA/ARRB/ETC established other than to compile it and present it in a form that can be understood. Conclude what you like... you think the hands match and the images are genuine... fine. it wont change the entirety of the evidence surrounding the photos or their obvious implications.... but you will succeed at keeping doubt in the minds of those looking for answers... and give credibility to a presentation of a lie in support other lies... Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) Mr. G... Lammy wants to make sure we use photogrammetry when measuring the differences or similarities of the BYP yet does not seem to possess or provide the results of his own photogrammetry based measurements that may prove this one way or the other... but he asks others to do so... and reminds them that without it any comparison is worthless.... different perspective, LOS, etc,etc.... So I thought what differences were apparent WITHOUT the need to measure anything... Welcome to reality, and yes I know its a concept where you have very little knowledge. As usual you thought wrong. Without the proper measurements you have nothing but hot air. Again...as usual. Edited March 30, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) [...] Conclude what you like... you think the hands match and the images are genuine... fine. [...] Dear Mr. Josephs, At least try to get it straight. I never said I think that the hands match, nor did I ever say I think that the backyard photos are genuine. What I did say, in so many words, is that it's impossible to determine from the photos you posted whether or not all of the hands are from the same person, in this case Lee Harvey Oswald. What's so hard for you to understand about that? Sincerely, --Tommy Edited March 30, 2013 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 [...] Conclude what you like... you think the hands match and the images are genuine... fine. [...] Dear Mr. Josephs, At least try to get it straight. I never said I think that the hands match, nor did I ever say I think that the backyard photos are genuine. What I did say, in so many words, is that it's impossible to determine from the photos you posted whether or not all of the hands are from the same person, in this case Lee Harvey Oswald. What's so hard for you to understand about that? Sincerely, --Tommy Yeah DJ has a hard time keeping such things straight yet lectures others about logical thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 Thomas... what is so hard for you to understand that the images were created by putting Oswald's face on someone else's body... there are no "fake hands" and it's somewhat infantile for you to keep referring to them as such when I've addess that mistake repeatedly. "Repeatedly" LOL Tommy NEVER said such a thing, Prove me wrong, cite when he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Thomas... what is so hard for you to understand that the images were created by putting Oswald's face on someone else's body... there are no "fake hands" and it's somewhat infantile for you to keep referring to them as such when I've addess that mistake repeatedly. "Repeatedly" LOL Tommy NEVER said such a thing, Prove me wrong, cite when he did. Mr. Colby, HOW DARE YOU insist that David be held accountable for his inaccurate accusations? The gall! LOL --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 [...] Conclude what you like... you think the hands match and the images are genuine... fine. [...] Dear Mr. Josephs, At least try to get it straight. I never said I think that the hands match, nor did I ever say I think that the backyard photos are genuine. What I did say, in so many words, is that it's impossible to determine from the photos you posted whether or not all of the hands are from the same person, in this case Lee Harvey Oswald. What's so hard for you to understand about that? Sincerely, --Tommy bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Kingsbury Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 N' grind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Thomas... what is so hard for you to understand that the images were created by putting Oswald's face on someone else's body... there are no "fake hands" and it's somewhat infantile for you to keep referring to them as such when I've addess that mistake repeatedly. "Repeatedly" LOL Tommy NEVER said such a thing, Prove me wrong, cite when he did. Proved wrong... I think what you're saying is that, due to your belief that the backyard photos are fake, the hands in the photos must be fake Please understand that on this thread I'm only concerned with your apparent belief that you have posted definite photographic proof that Oswald's hands were faked in the back yard photographs. My argument is that the resolution is so fuzzy as to make it impossible to say whether or not they were faked. If the head/face of person B were to be superimposed/pasted/spliced/(or whatever-word-you-want-to-use) onto/over/on the body/torso and hands of person A in a composite final-product photograph, couldn't one say that the body/torso and hands had been "faked" for person B, taking the word "faked" in its broadest meaning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) Thomas... what is so hard for you to understand that the images were created by putting Oswald's face on someone else's body... there are no "fake hands" and it's somewhat infantile for you to keep referring to them as such when I've addess that mistake repeatedly. "Repeatedly" LOL Tommy NEVER said such a thing, Prove me wrong, cite when he did. Proved wrong... I think what you're saying is that, due to your belief that the backyard photos are fake, the hands in the photos must be fake Please understand that on this thread I'm only concerned with your apparent belief that you have posted definite photographic proof that Oswald's hands were faked in the back yard photographs. My argument is that the resolution is so fuzzy as to make it impossible to say whether or not they were faked. If the head/face of person B were to be superimposed onto the body of person A in a photograph, couldn't one say that the body had been "faked" for person B, taking the word "faked" in its broadest meaning? Dear Mr. Josephs, "Fake" in the sense of "not Oswald's." duh Best regards, --Tommy PS: Edited and color coded once again for your benefit. Edited March 31, 2013 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Again Mr Graves... let's make sure to use the BROADEST posssible terminology rather than be specific and purposeful in our wording. a spelling AND a definition cop.... your uses here know no boundaries.... thank you for setting me straight... YOU cant conclude they are different... fine. I think we can, and they are as do many others. I never said I think that the hands match, nor did I ever say I think that the backyard photos are genuine.What I did say, in so many words, is that it's impossible to determine from the photos you posted whether or not all of the hands are from the same person, in this case Lee Harvey Oswald. What's so hard for you to understand about that? What I understand is you cannot commit to a POV here... and you dont seem to be able to incoprorate more than your fixation on my hands post into your thinking... at least you have not presented anything as such. Are you saying the images are real or a composite... and why do you come to that conclusion...? Sh!t or get off already... I personally would like to believe that Oswald's face was pasted (or whatever) onto the body of another man in the backyard photos, but I refuse to seriously entertain what I consider to be amateurish and biased "analysis" or "study" of any part of those same backyard photos. What analysis do YOU offer to support anything you believe about them other than the critque of others work? NONE it appears. So you're just another "person" with an unsupported opinion... wishing you could do SOMETHING other than bloviate about others attempts... and hope that Lammy comes and saves your daywith insults and misdirection Well done Tommy. I KNOW WHY the BYP are not genuine all the way back to Italy... you appear wishy-washy about it. You're conclusion is that the hands image is not sufficient to come to a conclusion... Do you offer anything that IS sufficient or do your opinions simply appear out of unsupported thin air? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 31, 2013 Author Share Posted March 31, 2013 Exactly Dave, Tom defined 'fake hands' exactly as you did, i.e. not Oswald's not as in some other sort of photo-manipulation as you'd implied he'd said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) Exactly Dave, Tom defined 'fake hands' exactly as you did, i.e. not Oswald's not as in some other sort of photo-manipulation as you'd implied he'd said. Len, In my humble opinion Mr. Josephs is just trying to divert attention away from the inconvenient fact that the photos he posted, due to their dubious varying "qualities" and the difficult-to-identify nature of the subject matter (hands from a distance), are inconclusive as to whether or not all the hands in the photos are from the same person (Oswald). All along Mr. Josephs has basically been saying, "Since I and a lot of other people believe that the backyard photos are fake, the hands in the backyard photos must belong to someone other than Oswald. The hands in the BYP look really different to me because I know they can't possibly be Oswald's hands. Trust me folks, the hands in the BYP aren't Oswald's! See, the fingers are fatter in that there fuzzy-wuzzy photograph! All you have to do is believe and then you'll "see" them the way I do!" The fact that Mr. Josephs keeps trying to turn the tables on me by demanding that I present evidence that all the hands in the photos he posted are Oswald's indicates to me that he doesn't have a clue about the meaning of the word "inconclusive." --Tommy Edited April 1, 2013 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 9, 2013 Author Share Posted May 9, 2013 Thomas... "definite proof" of anything in this case is virtually impossible... All I'm saying is the hands don't look the same... they don't seem to match... When you ADD THAT TO THE OTHER MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE PROVING THE BYP NOT GENUINE it is not so hard to fathom or understand. I presented and mentioned this other evidence... you want to call theose in the HSCA who questioned the authenticity "amateurs" so be it. You, nor Frankenstein below you can prove they are genuine... nor explain how at least one of them was seen the night before and asked about hours before their discovery... I know you want to believe... but you're stuck on the hands and have some hard-on for arguing with me over them and silly semantics. That you want to play spelling cop is wonderful... and when the literary society tells me I can't have tea with them since my spelling and grammar can be poor from time to time due to the speed at which I respond and move on... I'll let you know... "The whole world to see" - a lttile bit full of oneself and this forum Thomas... All I get are emails thanking me for taking on the likes of you and your buddies Costello and Frankenstein... I talk about the trees and forest and all you three want to debate is leaf stem sizes.... Lammy chimes in with another request to do what he can't, won't and would never understand to begin with... Len is simply a xxxxx for no other purpose but the jollies and we expect better from you sir.... Tell you what... when you find DEFINITIVE PROOF of anything in this case... start a thread and watch 'em come out of the woodwork... I'm done with this absurd discussion of a foregone conclusion.... Catchyallater... Bumped for DJ to see if he can finally do any better than "the hands don't look the same... they don't seem to match" based on your very non-expert opinion derived from looking at low resolution images of the taken from different angles with different cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now